Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tepapa" data-source="post: 7959417" data-attributes="member: 14120"><p>That's how I see it could work but they need to pay more than 3x the payment.</p><p></p><p>If a farmer had 100 acres but had to keep 10 acres to environmental standard, which could include some habitat creation with certain plant species present or other biodiversity, and they were checked on that 10 acres to make sure you complied but it was worth </p><p></p><p>A) £1000/acre so £10,000 in payment there's a good chance he's going to look after it for the environment and not jeopardize his £10,000. So for example he won't put feeders on it or poach it with cattle in the winter in case he lost his substantial payment.</p><p></p><p>Now </p><p>B) you imagine you gave him £10/acre so it's worth £100 to him, do you think he's going to care if he gets caught with a with a ring feeder on it or if he cuts it on a certain day? Probably save more in straw then the payment.</p><p></p><p>Then the other 90 acres was his to farm. The environment will benefit from the 10 acres of better environmental benefit by better management and the farmer gets to farm unhindered on his 90 acres of productive land. </p><p>Both systems working alongside each other in harmony without being tied In government red tape on the whole farm business. There would be mozzaic of 10% of land area in high level environmental options dotted all around.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tepapa, post: 7959417, member: 14120"] That's how I see it could work but they need to pay more than 3x the payment. If a farmer had 100 acres but had to keep 10 acres to environmental standard, which could include some habitat creation with certain plant species present or other biodiversity, and they were checked on that 10 acres to make sure you complied but it was worth A) £1000/acre so £10,000 in payment there's a good chance he's going to look after it for the environment and not jeopardize his £10,000. So for example he won't put feeders on it or poach it with cattle in the winter in case he lost his substantial payment. Now B) you imagine you gave him £10/acre so it's worth £100 to him, do you think he's going to care if he gets caught with a with a ring feeder on it or if he cuts it on a certain day? Probably save more in straw then the payment. Then the other 90 acres was his to farm. The environment will benefit from the 10 acres of better environmental benefit by better management and the farmer gets to farm unhindered on his 90 acres of productive land. Both systems working alongside each other in harmony without being tied In government red tape on the whole farm business. There would be mozzaic of 10% of land area in high level environmental options dotted all around. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top